This week, during the Public TV report at the National Assembly, the opposition politicians were complained that they are not called to H1 to be on the air. The problem, certainly, exists, but it is not so sharp as it was some 10-15 years ago. I’m sure that there are some restrictions, but they are strict and imperative like before. And if you compare today’s Kocharyan-supporting “Armnews” TV broadcasts, then it is not hard to notice that at the time they were talking idle about the opposition, while today they just do utter a word. This, of course, is not the right approach, but certain progress is obvious. Incidentally, even today one can meet “the then” Armnews reminding texts in the second president’s supporting websites. Accordingly, it is a style, a world perception that has not been changed significantly.
Additionally, there is an objective, I would say, a creative matter. Classical “face to face” type of interview, in my opinion, is quite outdated and boring format although my colleagues and I continue working in this format. Anyway, I think this is an exhausted genre in Armenia. The point is that the “subject” of such political shows in our country is very limited. Out of 131 members of the parliament, more or less 35-40 of them can express articulated thoughts. There is approximately the same number of “extra-parliamentary” politicians, and equally “political scientists” or people who call them accordingly. These 120 people wander in the press clubs, websites, newspapers and are on air every day. How can we expect them to express any new or interesting thought?
I, for example, already know what they are going to, whom they are going to smash, whom they are going to praise. When I invite an opposition member to talk, he utters the word “people” for 135 times in half an hour in a positive context (we, the people) and “Serzh Sargsyan” in a negative context. When I invite a pro-government member, he/she will utter the words “human-centered” and “reformed” for 40 times. The pro-Russian will tell what a wonderful and accurate attacks the Russians have given to the terrorists while the pro-American will tell what “wrong locations” the Russian missiles are falling. Our goal, certainly, is to transfer the views of the politicians and experts to the readers or TV viewers. But I assume that these views have long been known to those who are interested in politics. Well, the others are not watching such TV programs and do not read such materials.
… NA MP Nikol Pashinyan recently wrote that the pro-Russians, pro-Americans, and pro-Europeans should be eliminated from our political culture. The public should reject the figures, who are the “patriots” of this or that geopolitical center. I think it is indisputable. But I also suggest doing the next step and rejected the ardent fans of the first, the second and the third presidents.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
